Supreme Court Advises Caution While Granting Ad-Interim Anticipatory Bail

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Courts must exercise caution when granting interim protection to the accused while deciding anticipatory bail pleas. While holding so, the Court expressed disapproval of the High Court's decision to grant the accused the liberty to join the investigation while the anticipatory bail plea was pending and to order their release on ad-interim bail in the event of arrest by the investigating officer.“There is no point in asking the accused to go before the investigating officer pending the final disposal of the anticipatory bail application before the High Court and further saying that in the event of arrest he shall be released on ad-interim bail. Such ad-interim reliefs have their own legal implications.”, the court observed. The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan was hearing an appeal filed by the informant challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court's order, which allowed the accused to join the investigation while the anticipatory bail plea was pending and directed their release on ad-interim bail in the event of arrest by the investigating officer. The Appellant/informant contended that the ad-interim relief provided to the accused was in the nature of the final relief of anticipatory bail during the pendency of their anticipatory bail plea, which is impermissible under law. Finding force in the Appellant's contention, the Court disapproved of the High Court's grant of ad-interim relief, holding that the same was practically in the nature of granting the final relief of anticipatory bail pending the disposal of the anticipatory bail plea. “Ordinarily, when the High Court takes up anticipatory bail application for hearing it has three options. Either it may reject it on the very first day or it may issue notice to the State but would not grant any ad-interim protection or in a given case may issue notice and may even deem fit to grant appropriate protection. The aforesaid is of course the discretion of the Court concerned having regard to the merits of the matter. However, what we disapprove in the present case is the nature of the ad-interim relief granted. The same is practically in the nature of granting the final relief.”, the court observed. Reference was made to the case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2024), where the Court emphasized caution in exercising the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail. It was held that interim orders are case-specific and depend on the facts of each matter, and such an interim order should not be passed that could obstruct investigations and potentially result in a miscarriage of justice. “While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases.”, the court observed in Srikant Upadhyay's case. Case Title: DEEPAK AGGARWAL VERSUS BALWAN SINGH & ANR.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 68Click here to read/download the order

Supreme Court Advises Caution While Granting Ad-Interim Anticipatory Bail

Yash Mittal

Tags